Agree or Disagree: No-fault divorce should be abolished?

Question

The fault divorce could still be in place for the serious situations. Just remove no-fault divorce so it's not so easy and people (in general) would need to marriage more seriously.

Super Ruper: That's not an answer.

Super Ruper: Thank you! Now to answer your question.

Yes, you have my beliefs down correctly.

Melimar: I don't understand how I'm trying to control the intimate decisions of others. I'm stating that I don't agree with no-fault divorce but that fault divorce should still be out there. So how am I trying to control their decisions?

Also, just because I don't agree with someone's decision doesn't mean me voicing my opinion against it is controlling their decision. That's like saying that no one should ever voice their opinions as they might be trying to control everyone's decisions.

Answer 1

Considering that "no-fault divorce" accomplishes nothing less than punishing the innocent while rewarding the shallow and lazy, it should be eliminated. In fact, it should never have come to fruition.

It reduced marriage to nearly the same state as 'going steady' but with fiscal punishment for the one more willing to work on the relationship.

For those who may think it good that women can now escape a "loveless marriage", it simply provides yet another way to avoid the responsibility of one's choices and adds the 'benefit' of punishment of the faithful. Marriage has become a venue that requires no thought, no introspection, no responsibility and no integrity.

In my opinion, those seeking a "no-fault" divorce should be allowed to walk out with nothing more than the clothes on their back.

Answer 2

No, it should not be abolished. Take a look at New York, where Fault divorce is in place and their divorce rates aren't any lower. It won't make a bit of difference. Fault divorce does, however, make divorce into an all out war and tends to drag out for years if contested, making both parties resort to drastic measures in order to escape. Also, lawyers make more money from Fault divorces.

All in all, divorce rates are steady and are no where near as high as they were in the 1970's and 80's. In this day and age, the harder you make it to divorce, the less people will marry to begin with. If you want a recipe for a good marriage do the following things:

1) get a college education. When both spouses have college educations, the marriages last.

2) wait until you are in your late 20's to early 30's before you marry. People that marry in their teens and early twenties have a 70% chance of divorce

3) Marry someone you have something in common with and who shares your values - whatever they may be. I've seen more marriages break up when they bought the whole "opposites attract" crapola.

4)Set your expectations of marriage reasonably. The in-love feeling wears off after 3 years. Know this and understand that it will happen in every relationship you have were you to leave your spouse. Once the magic wears off, you become more like a friends than lovers and the marriage is about committment and family at that point.

5)Do not depend on your spouse to make you happy - they will disappoint you every time. You must be responsible for your own happiness.

6) Both of you must committ to the marriage 100%. No marriage is 50/50. It's 100/100.

Answer 3

I think demanding (and offering for those who can't afford it) marriage counseling or some sort of review by a trained psychologist prior to divorce would be much better. Possibly making people attend a few Saturday afternoon sessions of pre-marriage counseling as well would be good, these services would also have to be offered for free because not everyone can afford a psychologist.

I do believe divorce is too easy to come by, but I think it's too easy because of society somehow viewing remaining married as not that important and divorce as being an option in the forefront rather than to be used as a last resort. Not because of whatever various names divorce has.

EDIT: To Alexandra, so you are saying I would have been happier if my parents would have remained married even after my father broke my mothers arm, was living an entirely seperate life with another women, and would constantly smoke in my presence despite being extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke and often time having to go to the hospital to be put on oxygen. What part of this marriage, or any abusive marriage makes children happy. You try being four and having your parents having an all out verbal war in the other room. There is squabbling and there is fighting and there is abuse. Yes a "squabble" is nothing to divorce over, every couple has a disagreement periodically. Yelling and causing physical injury will never make a child happy.

Answer 4

I think this would lead to a lot of problems. The no-fault divorce has made the legal process of divorce less emotionally distressing for both parties and it has also created situations in which women do not automatically get financial support from men (for better or worse). Back when "fault" divorces were the only options, more times than not then men would just assume the "fault' role and this would lead to financial consequences for them. A no fault divorce ends up allowing for greater equitable negotiation between the parties.

Anyway, I don't know why it should concern you how seriously others take their marriages. If you take your marriage seriously, that should be all you feel the need to worry about.

Answer 5

Nope. I think would be better a serious evaluation before, to check if it's truly the case of a no-fault divorce, or if it's the case to go on with the whole legal procedure.
If you were to go to court for a fallen roof, you may resort to technical evaluation from experts and stuff... for divorces it would be auspicable a major role of psycological evaluation.
I'm not calling mad who decide to divorce and start a new life with another partner, I'm only telling that if everyone would be forced to answer the simple "Why?" question seriously and with someone to check between lies and truths thing may be better.

Answer 6

My parents were married for 22 years before they divorced. They didn't just "jump into it".

While some people may opt for divorce as an easy solution, I think that is why fewer and fewer people are getting married before age 30. They are trying to make better choices for themselves and their future family.

No - no fault divorce shouldn't be taken away. Why would we? Some couples simply cannot reconcile, and sometimes it is better for the families to split.

EDIT - Why the constant need to control the intimate decisions of others?
EDIT take 2 - I've been married ten years, but was separated for a year for many reasons. If I'd filed for no-fault, did that mean I'd taken the easy way out?
I just don't like this black and white stuff. Marriage and divorce aren't that simple to be defined in such narrow, definitive terms.
Forgive me for seeming rude. It just seems that these questions are asked to be rated on someones "moral" scale.

Answer 7

Agree, partly. I think at the time of marriage, you should pick which one you want, no-fault or "traditional" style. My hubby and I would have done a covenant marriage, if it was available when we married. A contract is NOT a contract if either party can break it for any reason or no reason at all! Let couples choose which they want, and housewives like me can throw ourselves into our marriage, and give freely, with less risk. I think the no-fault divorce must discourage some women from being housewives out of fear of divorce! So let people choose which they want.

EDIT: Some folks seem to think both parties have to agree to get divorced. This is untrue currently. A "fault" divorce requires the partner seeking the divorce to show that the marriage contract was broken somehow, by abuse, adultery, addiction, or abandonment. Just to clarify things. :-)

Answer 8

I believe the reason for the No-fault divorce was to cut down on the mud slinging in courts, don't quote me; it's what I heard once. When people don't get along they should be allowed the dignity to part their ways amicably.
I agree that it should not be so easy accessed so that people don't get a whim to give up when they should be sorting out their problems so that they can stay together; seems nowadays people don't care about the sacredness of marriage; some that is.

Answer 9

I don't think it would make a difference. People don't stay in marriages because they can't get a divorce. There are already many people can't afford a divorce, they just separate and move on with their respective lives figuring out the details themselves. I think removing this option would either cause more people to separate indefinitely w/o a divorce or cause they to act in ways that would allow them to divorce by law.

Answer 10

IMO The problem with that is we are an 'anything goes' society. It seems like much of society feels they are entitled to what they want when they want it.

Maybe we should make it harder to get married - have to pass at test or something....

We can always move backward where people want divorce and either live apart the required time or fake fault.

Intresting topic, but I don't see it happening

Answer 11

Yes, it should be abolished. Marriage is currently the only legal contract that you don t have to show fault to break the contract. If I want to break my home mortgage contract, I have to show the bank is at fault. The same with my car finance contract. So why should my spouse not have to show fault to end a marriage, a legal binding contract?